If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

After seriously pondering these questions for over a half century, my conclusions are: (1) The Young Earth view is not one of the Fundamentals of the Faith. (2) It is not a test for orthodoxy.* (3) *It is not a condition of salvation.* (4) *It is not a test of Christian fellowship. (5) It is not an issue over which the body of Christ should divide. (6) It is not a hill on which we should die. (7) The fact of creation is more important than the time of creation. (8) There are more important doctrines on which we should focus (like the inerrancy of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the death and resurrection of Christ, and His literal Second Coming.* As Repertus Meldenius (d. 1651) put it: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things charity.” And by all counts, the age of the earth is not one of the essentials of the Christian Faith.

To repeat KG: "So Geisler allows an alternative reading to the traditional reading of Genesis, but he tried to destroy the career of Michael Licona for trying to do the same with Matthew 27."

Note: I am a YEC who has no problems with what Geisler said here, I've said it myself a few times.....but he's letting his hypocrisy show.

If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:

Source: Dr. Norman Geisler

Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:

Source: Dr. Norman Geisler

Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:

Source: Dr. Norman Geisler

Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:

Source: Dr. Norman Geisler

Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

He's missing two important facts here. Michael Licona* does not "dehistoricize" the Gospels, and that modern science is not "general revelation". General revelation is what people throughout all time would have available to them.

*I'll have to look for it, but he explicitly denies this accusation, and goes into why this is so.

If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:

Source: Dr. Norman Geisler

Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

He is saying it's ok for some to regard The first 5 chapters of Genesis as allegory and/or poetry, which are "generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual". But he then turns around and says it's not ok for Licona to look at exactly what category of text the Gospels are.
He is being wildly inconsistent saying that we can allow outside [extra-biblical] influences to take priority over our interpretation of Genesis, and at the same time saying we can't with regards to Matthew's narrative of the crucifixion.